My 2c: please take it offline. Thank you, -ed
On Fri, Nov 1, 2024, 7:02 PM Aijun Wang <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, Chris: > > Until now, I haven’t heard you, and also other experts for the technical > analysis of UPDATED big-TLV solution( > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wang-lsr-isis-big-tlv/) > > Lack of such technical analysis, any subjective conclusion is untenable. > > It’s same as declaring again and again the MP-TLV can solve the problem, > even in short term. > > If possible, I can argue with the authors, or you Chairs for the unsolved > issues that existing in MP-TLV proposal face to face during the IETF 121 > meeting time. > > Aijun Wang > China Telecom > > On Oct 31, 2024, at 21:24, 【外部账号】Christian Hopps <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi Aijun, > > [as wg-member] Please see Henk Smit’s response. I fully support what he > said. We have a short term solution that the WG agrees is sufficient, and > it is explicitly not Big TLV. Likewise container TLVs are not a long-term > elegant solution. > > Thanks, > Chris. > > On Oct 28, 2024, at 09:22, Aijun Wang <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi, Chris: > > > Let’s discuss your proposal and Les’s responses more further. > > > First, depending on RFC7356 to solve the potential problem is not > practicable—You must define all the new types for possible big IS-IS TLV, > and also their relevant sub-TLVs. > > It’s obviously not the candidate solution. > > > On the contrary, the updated Big-TLV proposal( > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wang-lsr-isis-big-tlv/) needs only > to define one new generic TLV to solve all possible big-TLV problem, and > also their sub-TLVs. > > > Second, regarding to Les’s responses at > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/iL-3bd3LC9ZfYftZUyky3bWyX4E/: > > > “ This is why some RFCs left the choice in such cases to the implementor. > > I mention this only to avoid an argument about trying to retrofit this > model to codepoints where this choice was not made. It isn’t worth the > trouble and would instantly render some implementations non-conformant > without significant benefit.” > > > It’s possible that there are in private negotiation among different > vendors when there are interoperability issues from such implicit “what > constitutes a key”, such situations will be deteriorated when these > TLV/sub-TLVs are sliced according to the MP-TLV proposal. > > > The MP-TLV proposal will amplify such non-conformant issues. > > > It’s time to find one general solution to Big-TLV problem. > > > Aijun Wang > > China Telecom > > > > Aijun Wang > > China Telecom > > > > On Oct 26, 2024, at 20:09, 【外部账号】Christian Hopps <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > Hannes Gredler <[email protected]> writes: > > > Why are we having this discussion again ? > > > My recollection is that we have a “good enough” solution that is > > deployed and interoperable. > > If you want the “generic solution” then the 16-bit TLVs described in > > RFC7356 is the way to go forward and if there is concern about > > incremental deployment then we should work on this aspect. > > > I also believe the 16 bit solution is the way forward if people wish to do > any more on this at this point. > > > Thanks, > > Chris. > > [as wg-member] > > > > > /hannes > > > > > On 23.10.2024, at 00:50, Aijun Wang <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > Hi,Chris: > > > Please elaborate clearly your technical reviews for the updates > > of the newly proposed Big-TLV solution. > > > I can copy the updates again at here and state their effects > > clearly.(https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/ > > dxK4Gy1WDR7QCXK6p58xgA0MdUc/ )Please give your analysis before > > you make any conclusions: > > > > A new version of Big-TLV document has been posted( > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-wang-lsr-isis-big-tlv), to > try to give the community one general way to solve the Big TLV problem. > > > The main changes from the previous versions are the followings: > > 1) Add one "Identification" field within the container TLV(type TBD1), > to function as the key for any sliced TLV, and is TLV code point > independent. > > 2) Add one "Flag" field, define currently the "F" bit to indicate > whether the piece of container is the first piece(F bit is set to 1), or > not (F bit is unset) > > 3) Put all the sliced pieces within the newly defined container TLV(type > TBD1). > > 4) Define some rules for the "Split and Glue" procedures(may be > re-optimizer later after the WG discussions) > > > The updated version erases the necessity of defining the "key" > information for every IS-IS (Possible Big) TLV code point, and also the > necessity of per-TLV capability announcement. > > > > I would like to hear your detail analysis, especially as the WG chairs, > for the above statements. > > > Aijun Wang > > China Telecom > > > > On Oct 22, 2024, at 20:15, 【外部账号】Christian Hopps > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Those changes don't appear to address what the WG already > > decided against. The view of the WG was that a new Big TLV > > for doing this was not going to work. Given the name of this > > work is Big TLV, that doesn't seem to have changed. So why > > should the WG be spending even more time on a solution they > > already discussed, debated and discarded? > > > Thanks, > > Chris. > > [as wg chair] > > > > > On Oct 22, 2024, at 06:47, Aijun Wang > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Hi, Chris: > > > > > No, we have made some significant updates. > > > Please refer to https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr > > /dxK4Gy1WDR7QCXK6p58xgA0MdUc/ for more information. > > > > > Aijun Wang > > > China Telecom > > > > > On Oct 22, 2024, at 17:04, 【外部账号】Christian > > Hopps <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Is this the same thing that Huaimo has already > > presented to the WG, that the WG decided was not the > > way it wanted to go? > > > > > Thanks, > > > Chris. > > > > > "Aijun Wang" <[email protected]> writes: > > > > > Hi, Yingzhen: > > > > > > > > > I would like to request 10-15minutes to make the > > presentation for the > > > “IS-IS Extension for Big TLV” > > > > > The related information are the followings: > > > > > > > > > Draft Name: IS-IS Extension for Big TLV > > > > > Link: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/ > > draft-wang-lsr-isis-big-tlv > > > / > > > > > Presenter: Aijun Wang > > > > > Desired Slot Length: 10-15minutes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards > > > > > > > > > Aijun Wang > > > > > China Telecom > > > > > > > > > 发件人: [email protected] > > > [mailto:[email protected]] 代表 > > Yingzhen Qu > > > 发送时间: 2024年10月12日 3:54 > > > 收件人: lsr <[email protected]>; lsr-chairs > > <[email protected]> > > > 主题: [Lsr] IETF 121 LSR Slot Requests > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > The draft agenda for IETF 121 has been posted: > > > > > IETF 121 Meeting Agenda > > > > > > > > > The LSR session is scheduled on Thursday Session > > I 09:30-11:30, Nov 7th, 2024. > > > > > > > > > Please send slot requests to [email protected] > > before the end of the day > > > > > Wednesday Oct 23. Please include draft name and > > link, presenter, desired > > > > > slot length including Q&A. > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > Yingzhen > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Lsr mailing list -- [email protected] > > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > > > <signature.asc> > > > _______________________________________________ > > Lsr mailing list -- [email protected] > > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > > > > _______________________________________________ > Lsr mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
